[HN Gopher] Open Source Personal Relationship Manager ___________________________________________________________________ Open Source Personal Relationship Manager Author : taubek Score : 133 points Date : 2022-11-14 09:56 UTC (1 days ago) (HTM) web link (www.monicahq.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.monicahq.com) | rngname22 wrote: | The one big problem I have with this (and I do take notes after | some types of conversations with for example first dates through | fifth dates to remember important things about people), is that I | fear that if I truly took good notes on conversations with loved | ones that if the data ever gets leaked / hacked that I've just | 1000% fucked everyone I've spoken to and took notes about, if I | record anything that is highly personal and private to them. | renewiltord wrote: | This is also my personal fear. Instead I just have the people I | trust in a group chat or Slack group and then I search each of | these. | robinhood wrote: | Author of Monica/Chandler here. Thanks for posting this. As | others have pointed out, we are rewriting Monica from scratch, | codename Chandler: https://github.com/monicahq/chandler | | We've also written OfficeLife, an open source tool to manage your | employees: https://github.com/officelifehq/officelife, yet to be | released. | | I think we have too many ideas and side projects :-) | pwdisswordfish9 wrote: | I usually despise comments that point out that two pieces of | (almost always unrelated) software share the same (or a | similar) name. That doesn't apply in this case-- | | Chandler has not only already been used for another piece of | software, it has been used for something in what is roughly the | same space. The other Chandler was discontinued >10 years ago, | but I had to double check and triple check to suss out whether | or not your Chandler is actually a reboot + a rewrite. And I'm | still hedging (but I think the answer is "no, they're | completely separate"). That's a confusing amount of similarity. | | EDIT: it looks like this has been pointed out. Even though it's | "just" a codename, I'd recommend changing it to something like | "chauncey" or "bingaling" or "miss-bong" or "skidmark" or | something. | BostonEnginerd wrote: | The Monica /Chandler thing is a reference to the 90s | television show "Friends". | TylerE wrote: | wooosh | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends#Cast_and_characters | scrumper wrote: | Parent isn't wrong. Chandler was a very interesting | distributed PIM in (I think) the very early 2000s. It | collapsed under the weight of its own ambition but it's a | significant piece of software history, one of those | alternative paths. | | And yes it's a TV character too, but Parent isn't wrong to | point out the name collision. | TylerE wrote: | Your're wooshing yourself too. Chandler was a character | on Friends. The parent project, Monica, is ALSO a | character on Friends. | ParadisoShlee wrote: | Glad to see there is a future for monica. I've been a paid | Monica user for a long time, and I've mostly been looking | forward to a mobile app. | emptysea wrote: | Curious to learn more about the rewrite, do you have and docs | handy? | | Edit: should have scrolled down more: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33612776 | abraae wrote: | I would really encourage you to push forward with OfficeLife. I | believe the HR space is primed and ready for a decent open | source offering. For what it's worth, APIs would be super | useful, e.g. in the recruiting world there are hundreds of | different background checks etc. that anyone serious needs to | integrate with. | lifeisstillgood wrote: | I am not too sure about officelife, but i think there is a | market for _internal relationship management_ at middle and | large companies - often a mark of success is managing the | internal network. | | This has been badly damanged during lockdown - just walking | past someone's desk and being reminded I need to speak to | them was useful. And just saying hi kept the "relationship" | fresh | CharlesW wrote: | I'm not sure why I would need this, especially now that I can | codify my personal relationships in iOS and Android. | | https://www.pcworld.com/article/430990/how-to-teach-contact-... | CharlesW wrote: | For anyone taking this the wrong way, I'll frame it | differently: My OS has my structured and unstructured contact | data (including their relationships with me and to each other), | a way to attach contacts to calendar events and notes, and a | standard API that apps can use (at my discretion) to access | that data. How does Monica use/improve on that? | js8 wrote: | Offtopic, but I am reminded by this idea of "Personal CRM". I | would like to have a universal "Game ERP" system that I could | plug-in (via mods) into different computer games, to organize | inventories, keep track of production, plan goals, manage | resources, chart progress etc. | rrodriguez wrote: | Have been using https://clay.earth for this and like it so far, a | bit less manual work to keep it updated - but have used Monica | and Evernote for this in the past with good success too. | kkfx wrote: | I prize all FLOSS effort, but try to observe a thing: here is a | "PRM" (CRM), there a webmail, there something else, ALL not | integrated AT ALL. It's not possible to integrate them since they | are different applications. | | Now try looking at classic model: anything is a single | application, from the OS to user-programmed simple automation. | That's true for Smalltalk workstations to LispM. This is so | effective that I found today far simpler and power using Emacs | than any other modern software, even if modern Emacs just run on | top of something else, lacking a LispM underneath, and even if | it's development lag in many areas for modern usages. | | So to say: all FLOSS authors, instead of trying competing with | commercial tools their way, do your best to resurrect the old | way. Please choose to learn classic languages like Lisp (CL or | anything else) or Smalltalk (see Pharo as an example) to | rediscover the idea that there is NO APPLICATION but just one | with various bits of code plugged is as needed. So for instance a | PRM can include a mail system, a complete agenda/calendar system, | ... without trying the Greenspun's tenth rule way, and fail as | usual. | jredwards wrote: | I've started doing this with Obsidian, since I can template and | query any type of data I want in it. | beckingz wrote: | How do you structure your data? | gandreani wrote: | I would also like to know! I use Obsidian for a lot and I'm | constantly amazed by what other people think up of | n8cpdx wrote: | Not the person you asked, but I came to leave a similar | comment. I was curious about Monica, but for a variety of | reasons it didn't click for me. | | I use obsidian for tracking meetings, people, and documents | in a civic engagement sphere. So hundreds of entities and a | few meetings a week. | | I have folders for interpersonal meetings (calls, coffee | dates, one on ones), public/group meetings, people, and a few | other things. Every individual gets a top-level entry in the | people folder. Every meeting or personal meeting gets a page | in folder; folders are organized by year, then month. E.g | meetings\2022\november\public forum with x on November 15, | 2022.md | | I use templates for each document type; that helps me keep | things consistent so I'm tracking the same information for | meetings. For meetings I run, I have special templates that | help keep me organized. | | When I take a note about a person saying something or | attending a meeting, I type [[, then I get a list of people | to choose from that autocompletes. I use the alias feature on | people notes to track things like job titles, name | variations, and acronyms. | | The approach is more flexible than Monica, and it lets me | grow and change the data I collect over time. The tool is a | super power. Obsidian tracks all the back links so if I want | to find out which meetings a colleague was in, it is very | easy to do that. | | I used to use OneNote but Obsidian is much more scalable. I'm | putting 10x as much info in it as I ever did in OneNote and I | expect to put 10-100x more before I move on to something | else. | | Bonus notes: | | Obsidian plugin system is great and has a pretty robust, if | not super well documented API. I'm working on plugins to | automatically improve records and already have plugins that | have saved hours on some special-purpose tags | | You can embed pdf documents like images and have a preview | show up as an embed. Amazing for meeting agendas. | | If you have standard fields for notes, you can surface those | in a table using dataview. | | Todoist integration is pretty cool if you want to make a | "Dashboard" note for project management. | | The iOS version keeps the synced files on the file system. | That means if you refer to a PDF, you can mark it up with a | dedicated app (e.g. PDF expert) in place and keep it synced | in your vault. | | You can create links before creating a matching note. This is | great for fast moving meetings, and then you just need to | click into the link to create a matching document. | jms703 wrote: | The authors are rewriting this software under a new name. | https://github.com/monicahq/chandler | pwdisswordfish9 wrote: | Cue pleas to "Reinstate Monica"... | muratsu wrote: | Does anyone know why they are rewriting the whole thing? The | github page doesn't mention the reasoning behind the decision | lupire wrote: | Rewrites are more fun than solving user problems | unixhero wrote: | Well this is a very simple system and could for instance be | reimplemented in Ruby On Rails in ... a few days? | robinhood wrote: | Founder of Monica and Chandler here. It's so easy that the | rewrite (aka Chandler) has taken Alexis and me 11 months so | far, as a side project, and working most nights and | weekends (check the number of commits). I know that Monica | appears to be easy, and Chandler also, but it's not easy. | Making a clone for yourself is easier, although not that | easy if you want to replicate all the features. Making a | clone for an entire community, which hosts Monica in tens | of different configurations, means having a robust CI, a | pipeline to package and deploy Docker images, a solid API, | and so on and so on. I thought building a project like | Monica was easy at first, but 6 years in, I can confidently | say: it's really not. | RajT88 wrote: | I would be a wealthy man indeed if I had a dollar for | every time some software engineer espoused, "This is | crap! I could build a better one myself!". | | If you took away a dollar for every software engineer who | I heard say that, and actually followed through, I'd | still be a rich man. | muratsu wrote: | I'm sure it's not the most sophisticated software, but the | repo has 3,736 commits over several years. I would imagine | it would take them more than a few days :) | endigma wrote: | We do these things not because they are easy, but because | we thought they would be easy. | kapep wrote: | It's mentioned on their blog: | https://www.monicahq.com/blog/a-new-version-is-coming | | > [...] Monica is an old code base now. Old in the sense that | it's 7 years old and it has been touched by hundred of | contributors. There are some concepts in the code that we let | through, because we either didn't know any better back then | or because we didn't want to piss off contributors, that we | don't want anymore. The project has way too many | dependencies, and maintaining the code has become harder than | it was before. Changing something is riskier, and takes more | time. Also, we've seen how people use Monica, what they want | to do with it, and the current code limits us way too much if | we want to support what people want to use Monica for. | Finally, Monica is still a side project for us. We are | extremely passionate about it, and we want to also have fun | building it. And the current version wasn't that fun. | muratsu wrote: | Thanks! Over the years I've seen several companies raise VC | money for the personal CRM idea and fail. In a way, I'm | glad they didn't raise outside capital and are able to | sustain themselves while building something that they are | clearly passionate about. | robinhood wrote: | Author of Chandler here. We are able to sustain the | server costs, but we have full time jobs "on the side" | because it's not sustainable. I don't know if it's ever | will. Don't care :-) Raising capital would make this | project a full time job, and put tremendous pressure on | having to generate revenues. We don't want this pressure | at all. We want to provide a nice and useful software | because we are geeks and we want to do something good. I | know it sounds naive and cliche but it's true. And if the | project buys us a new computer from time to time, that's | all that matters. | nico wrote: | Every re-write I've ever seen or been a part of, has either | failed or taken way longer and a lot more effort than | initially projected. | | Changing something is definitely not riskier, especially if | you have tests and real users who are actively providing | feedback as well as showing the edge cases. You can also | focus on changing only the things that need changing, | instead of having to redo everything just to change some | things. A re-write also delays everything, since current | users will probably not get any updates nor access to new | features until the re-write can provide a good alternative | to the existing system. | | Oh well, I guess since it's a side project for them, the | learning and fun will be more important than providing a | good experience to their users. | robinhood wrote: | Author of Chandler here. While rewriting the project is | extremely fun and definitely a very good learning curve | for us, we actually care A LOT about our users. I believe | Chandler is much, much better to use than the current | crappy Monica. It's easier, better UI and UX wise, and | have way better features. And we are working our asses | off to provide an API, and an importer to let you import | your data so you won't lose anything. I agree, while we | are rewriting the software, we don't have time to do | anything on the current codebase, except bug fixes here | and there. It's a price we have to pay unfortunately. So | why do we rewrite? It's simple - the current codebase is | old, and complex, and not fun to work on. We have merged | things in the codebase from the community that we | shouldn't have merge. The DB structure is old fashioned, | and not flexible, so migrations would be a nightmare to | do. I'm not saying it's not possible to improve the | current codebase, but... that would be an actual job, and | we don't want it to feel like a job. | abraae wrote: | > Every re-write I've ever seen or been a part of, has | either failed or taken way longer and a lot more effort | than initially projected. | | On the face of it what you say is true, but I've seen | (and I'm sure many have seen) situations where the | codebase was so bad - or the underlying technologies so | ancient - that a rewrite was the only practical way to | get things back on track again. | | Did the rewrite take way longer than initially projected? | Yes. | | Was it a lot more effort than initially projected? Yes. | | Was it painful medicine that nonetheless left the | business in a better place? Yes. | blowski wrote: | Chandler reminds me of the "Dreaming in Code" book, which | didn't have a happy ending. | homarp wrote: | not to be confused with the magnificent fail that is | https://www.chandlerproject.org/ famously depicted in | http://www.dreamingincode.com/ | | and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=271873 | johnchristopher wrote: | Not to be confused with | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandler_(software) I suppose ^^. | robinhood wrote: | Author of Monica/Chandler here. I didn't know that existed, | thanks for pointing that out. That being said, Chandler is | the codename. It'll be renamed to Monica once it's ready. | photoGrant wrote: | Monica had issues importing my contacts. Too many it says. I | didn't have /that/ many. It always stopped me from exploring it | further. | anon400232 wrote: | How many? (an estimate is ok) | photoGrant wrote: | I think it was around 1,000! At least last I remember that's | what the limit was. I tried splitting my contacts into | multiple groups but the effort wasn't worth it ultimately. | samanator wrote: | Thank you for posting this! I saw this posted on Hackernews a few | years ago. I've looked for it since then a few times when wanting | to get started on relationship management but could not remember | enough about the project to find it via search engine. | | Sometimes Hackernews is like a very slow reverse search engine! | jitix wrote: | Really love the concept, will definitely try it on my raspberry | pi. I've been trying to keep notes on likes/dislikes of | acquaintances and this is way more organized. | | However I'm bit curious why it's not deployed as a standalone | desktop or mobile app? Is there a technical limitation? | ddelt wrote: | I love the Friends reference behind both product names. I also | have been using Obsidian for this (and before that, any generic | note taking software). | | To me this sort of software is really powerful if you have the | time to constantly tend to it. I wish I had this built into my | mind. | theptip wrote: | > I wish I had this built into my mind | | One thing I am realizing over the years is that while it might | seem so, the best "social people" don't actually have this | built into their mind, they have some external system for | capturing facts like the OP, and do the work to maintain it. | | Whether that is writing the name of the person you met at | dinner into your diary when you get home (including info like | spouse/children), or calendar invites for birthdays of everyone | you know, or whatever. | | Reading "How to win friends and influence people" gives the | same broad advice. | | As you say, it's a lot of work (though it might look effortless | to interlocutors). But the flip-side of that observation is | that anyone can get better by just using these practices. (Of | course, social people are by definition more interested in this | sort of study.) | connordoner wrote: | This has appeared on HN a few times over the years. In order of | votes: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14497295 | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25270001 | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21850155 | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18318547 | thy77 wrote: | Anyone have a review? Do you like Monica and Chandler better than | Monday and Asana? | mxuribe wrote: | I've not used Monday, and I only used Asana for a few days when | it first came out years ago. But i have used Monica somewhat | minimally over the last year. So, my comments don't offer a | fair comparison...But what i can say is that Monica hits the | sweet spot of more than someone manually keeping notes in their | mailbox or addressbok....but less than something like | Salesforce, etc. Its actually well built from its minimalist UI | to its succinct feature set to its basic (but good) | notifications emails. If you're a sales person, or some actor's | agent, or maybe work on a sales team, then maybe a more | comprehensive CRM might be suitable...but for most other use | cases, something like Monica works, and works quite well. They | also offer a free plan (https://www.monicahq.com/pricing) with | feature and contact limits, but its more than enough to get a | feel for the service; to see if you might like it or not. | (Considering that this is a side project for the creators, the | limits are fair in my opinion.) | mulderc wrote: | This is the type of software I would really prefer not to have on | a server. The only part of this I would want not on my device | locally would be an encrypted backup. | renewiltord wrote: | It's self hosted, so you could just run it on the local | machine. It's a pity it uses MySQL because pgcrypto could | enable you to make the database publicly visible. | robinhood wrote: | Founder of Monica/Chandler here. We support Postgre too, and | SQLite on Chandler. | renewiltord wrote: | Very cool. I will give this is a shot this weekend. | phkahler wrote: | This would be great stand alone on a phone. | robinhood wrote: | Yes, but we don't know how to program on mobile. And if | we took contractors, that would cost a lot of money, | probably 20-30k USD. | CA0DA wrote: | I just saw this recently in Derek Sivers's (of CD Baby fame) | book, read here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBpg-CWcHC0 ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-11-15 23:00 UTC)